Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Education Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2621-5799

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 12 April 2021

Choice of Response Strategy Adopted by Indian Private Higher Education Institutions Collaborated with Foreign Education Institutions: Applying Porter’s Five Force Model

Laxmi Jaiswal

National Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (India)

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1993.04.02.198

Pages: 74-80

Keywords: Market Forces, Competitive Advantage, Strategy, Foreign Collaboration, Mode of Delivery

Abstract

Market follows the profit and compete for the resources to get competitive advantage that is inevitable. Private higher education institutions in India collaborate with foreign education providers to deliver education services in variety of modes for enlarging the student share in the market. Applying Porter’s Five Force Model it was analysed how the institutions in NCR of India position themselves in the market forces and strategise to get comparative advantage. India with huge size of middle class and vast system of higher education always attract the foreign institutions to collaborate and expand. The restrictive and proscriptive regulation does not allow foreign qualification in India except twinning mode. The finding of the present analysis using porter’s five force model suggest that regulation of the state must be comprehensive and supportive to encash the flow of market innovations that happen to be. Thoughtful regulatory framework may reap the benefit other wise institutions under market forces offer unrecognised foreign degree in informal way under the orbit of formal institution that motivate less quality tier II and III institutions to supply educational services disguising under formal system of higher education.

References

  1. Altbach P. G., Reisberg L., & Rumbley L. E., (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution—A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 world conference on higher education. Paris: UNESCO.

  2. Anand, K. A. (2012). Business of higher education–a business model for a higher education institution. International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow, 2(2), 1-7.

  3. Belfield, C. R., & H. M. Levin (2002) Education privatization: causes, consequences and planning implications, Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/iiep

  4. British Council, (2012). The Shape of Things to Come. British Council, Going Global.

  5. Chaffee, E.E., (1985). Three Models of Strategy. Acad. Manage. Rev. 10, 89–98.

  6. Christensen, C.M., Eyring, H.J., (2011). The Innovative University: changing the DNA of Higher Education from the inside out.

  7. Dahan, G. S., & Senol, I. (2012). Corporate social responsibility in higher education institutions: Istanbul Bilgi University case. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(3), 95-103.

  8. De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Jongbloed, B. (2009). Market governance in higher education. In B. M. Kehm, J. Huisman, & B. Stensaker (Eds.), The European higher education area: Perspectives on a moving target (pp. 61–78). Rotterdam: Sense.

  9. Dill, D. (2003). Allowing the market to rule: The case of the United States. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 136–157.

  10. Duczmal, W. (2006). The rise of private higher education in Poland: Policies, markets and strategies. Enschede, the Netherlands: CHEPS.

  11. AIU Report (2012). Foreign Education Providers in India. AIU publication.

  12. Gore, T. (2017). Being distinctive university market development strategies away from home, Thesis submitted, University of Bath.

  13. Gunay, D. (2014). Turkish higher education system, new developments and trends. Keynote presented at the international conference on new horizons in education. ISSN: 2146–7358. Retrieved from http://int-e.net/kis2014ppt/ DurmusGunay.pdf.

  14. Hazelkorn, E., (2007). The Impact of League Tables and Ranking Systems on Higher Education Decision Making. High. Educ. Manag. Policy 19, 87– 110.

  15. Huisman, J., & Currie, J. (2004). Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled water? Higher Education, 48, 529–551.

  16. Illieva, J., (2014). Directions of travel: Transnational pathways into English higher education. HEFCE.

  17. Jongbloed, B. (2003). Marketisation in higher education, Clark’s triangle and the essential ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 110–135.

  18. Jongbloed, B. (2004). Regulation and competition in higher education. In markets in higher education. (pp. 87-111).

  19. Kiechel, W.I., (2010). The Lords of Strategy, the secret intellectual history of the corporate world. Harvard Business Press, Boston.

  20. King, M. A. (2008). A strategic assessment of the higher education industry: applying the Porter’s five forces for industry analysis. In Southeastern Decision Sciences Institute Annual Conference, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Polytechnic

  21. Marginson, S., (2012). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: the battle for world-class excellence, by Ellen Hazelkorn. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 34, 557– 560.

  22. Martinez, M., & Wolverton, M. (2009). Analyzing higher education as an in­dustry. In M. Martinez & M. Wolverton (Eds.), Innovative Strategy Making in Higher Education (pp. 45–62). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

  23. Mazzarol, T., Hosie, P., & Jacobs, S. (1998). Information technology as a source of competitive advantage in international education. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 7(1), 113-130.

  24. Lynch, R., & Baines, P. (2004). Strategy development in UK higher education: towards resource‐based competitive advantages. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 171-187.

  25. Naidoo, R. (2005). Universities in the marketplace: The distortion of teaching and research. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 27–36). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

  26. Naidoo, R. (2008). Building or eroding intellectual capital? Student consumer­ism as a cultural force in the context of knowledge economy. In J. Valimmaa & O.-H. Ylijoki (Eds.), Cultural perspectives on higher education (pp. 43–55). Netherlands: Springer.

  27. Pasternack, P., Bloch, R., Gellert, C., Hölscher, M., Kreckel, R., Lewin, D., Lischka I. & Schildberg, A. (2007). Current and Future Trends in Higher Education. Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture Austria Bm: Bwk.

  28. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior per­formance. New York: Free Press.

  29. Pringle J. and Huisman J. (2011). Understanding Universities in Ontario, Canada: An Industry Analysis Using Porter’s Five Forces Framework, Canadian Journal of Higher Education Revue 41(3), 2011, 36 – 58.

  30. White, N. R. (2009). Tertiary education in the noughties: The student perspec­tive. In M. Tight, K. H. Mok, J. Huisman, & C. Morphew (Eds.), The Routledge inter­national handbook of higher education 137–149. New York: Routledge.

  31. Wildavsky, B., 2010. The Great Brain Race, How Global Universities are Reshaping the World. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.